Why Is Climate Change Special?
Josh Marshall wonders why the science around climate change, which is not based to any greater extent on “theories” than any other branch of science, seems to so many people to be uniquely assailable.
“[V]ery few people doubt physicists or oncologists when it comes to their areas of specialty even though theories come and go in those fields as well. There’s little doubt, for instance, that physicists at the end of this century will know a lot of things today’s scientists got wrong or don’t know. And they’ll know how many things today’s physicists believe that are just wrong. Still, I’m pretty confident nuclear warheads will go off, even if, as far as I know, one’s never been tested on the tip of an ICBM. Perhaps more to the point, medical science today clearly has only a very limited understanding of cancer. But how many oncology skeptics do you know who choose to take a pass on chemo or radiation if they get sick?”
Seems to me that we could ask the same questions of the anti-vaccinationists, as well (although, to be fair, I seem to recall some overlap between some of them and the shark-cartilage-for-cancer-cure crowd.)
Perhaps it has something to do with the refusal to share the data upon which the theory of AGW is based — a practice more akin to claims of shark cartilage cures than accepted scientific practice. Perhaps it also has something to do with the evidence that data was deliberately hidden or destroyed in order to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information laws.
And, perhaps, because there’s also plenty of evidence that the science was bent to serve political ends. Would not be the first time that happened.
Here’s an article summarizing the counter-arguments: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bellamy-one-must-ignore-200-years-of-observations-to-believe-in-agw-pjm-exclusive/
The nature of science is such that it is very easy to cast doubts in the manner that Bellamy does in your link.
For example, while it sounds damning to say that “Over the past 5,000 years…[t]here was not just one, but three periods when it was warmer than today… [a]nd yet life on Earth survived,” AGW theory does not depend on temperatures being about to climb higher than ever before. No one denies that there have been points in Earth’s history when it was MUCH hotter than scientists worry it will get in the next century. No one is claiming that “because it’s getting hotter, humans must be the cause.” Instead, they are claiming:
CO2 has heat-retaining properties.
Humans have emitted a lot more CO2 than would otherwise be present naturally.
Humans, therefore, have increased the heat-retaining properties of the atmosphere.
The worry is not that “it’s going to get much hotter than ever before,” the worry is that—because of human involvement—it’s going to get hotter than it would otherwise have gotten, with various unpleasant results for the world as we live in it now (for instance, millions of people displaced from low-lying areas by rising oceans, wars over clean water, collapse of current fisheries, etc.). No one says that global warming will wipe out all life, but you don’t have to change much before the way we humans can live in the world becomes radically altered.
Anyway, to me the most important question in the current context is—if AGW theory does not depend on temps being projected to climb higher than ever before—why does Bellamy pretend this is the case? This casts doubt for me on the seriousness and open-mindedness with which he has backgrounded himself on the issue.
Similarly, I’m not sure if we were meant to follow his links, but his link for the “Medieval Warm Period” says it only happened in Europe, contra what he says in his article.
Bellamy also says: “The recent trend is one of cooling, not the warming predicted by legions of modelers and their models.” This shows a misunderstanding (whether willful or otherwise) of the models: “[T]he long story short is that folks have done statistical analysis on this sort of thing, and it turns out that focusing on something like a 10 year trend is just not a reliable way to overturn the long term predictions.” http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2009/11/global_warming_is_not_real_bec.php
Etcetera.
Here’s an interesting article showing how easily the kind of statistical analysis that goes into climate change research can be cherry picked to look bad (from that noted organ of the hysterical left, The Economist). http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists
And I’ve responded to some other anti-AGW criticisms in the comments thread here: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/went-west/2009/dec/9/copenhagen-conspiracy-whats-it-scientists/